South Carolina diocese stands firm on priest’s warning letter

posted at 11:40 am on November 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

A South Carolina priest who sent a letter warning parishioners who voted for Barack Obama that they may have placed themselves outside of the communion of the Catholic Church has received the backing of his diocese. The Diocese of Charleston agrees with Fr. Jay Scott Newman’s letter despite the controversy it generated, which brings the debate over “formal participation” into a new context:

A Greenville priest who told parishioners those who cast ballots for President-elect Barack Obama risk placing themselves “outside of the full communion of Christ’s church” is simply enunciating church teaching and has the full support of the Diocese of Charleston, a spokesman said Thursday.

The provocative letter from the Rev. Jay Scott Newman to members of St. Mary’s Catholic Church has sparked some controversy and yet another conversation about faith and public policy.

“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil,” Newman said in the letter posted on the Greenville church’s Web site, www.stmarysgvl.org, “and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”

Newman said that those who did not choose the anti-abortion candidate, in this case U.S. Sen. John McCain, “should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Calling Obama “the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate,” Newman went on to say Catholics must pray for the newly elected chief executive.

“Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good,” Newman said in the letter.

Most Catholic bishops have stopped short of this conclusion. They have focused their criticisms on self-proclaimed Catholic officeholders who vote to enable abortions, calling those votes “formal cooperation” with the intrinsic evil of abortion. According to the catechism, in paragraph 2272, formal cooperation in abortions constitutes an automatically excommunicating event:

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

So far, the church has not officially applied 2272 explicitly to the act of voting for a pro-choice candidate. They’ve had enough trouble rousing the energy to apply church teachings to politicians such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. They’ve only been interested in doing that much for just a few years, but this letter is the next logical progression if the church wants to assert its beliefs more clearly in the parishes.

Catholic Democrats objected to the statement:

“Father Newman is off-base,” said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. “He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. … Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Senators Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words.”

It’s an odd moment indeed when someone accuses a parish priest of being off-base for quoting the catechism. Krueger appears to have more concern with membership statistics than the reason for belonging to the church in the first place. As far as the “spiritual cost” for talking about abortion and the church’s position, one might wonder whether Krueger doesn’t concern himself with the “spiritual cost” of supporting abortion. On what basis would a Catholic conclude that the spiritual cost of discussing the catechism would outstrip that of abortion itself?

Will the church broaden its definition of “formal cooperation” to explicitly include supporting abortion rights and voting for pro-abortion candidates? If so, Krueger’s prediction that many Democrats may leave the church will probably come true. However, the church has to apply its beliefs rather than worrying about popularity contests. Matthew 7:12-14 warns:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The point of the church is to provide the truth and light the narrow road, so that as many as possible can find it. The church does not exist to endorse the broad road simply because many people insist on following it, or to mislead people into thinking that the choice of road doesn’t matter at all. Priests do no favors to their parishioners when they avoid teaching the difference, and the spiritual cost of willful silence on the subject of abortion far outstrips the cost of speaking the truth.

Update: Via Tom Shipley, the statement of Monsignor Laughlin seems less than a full endorsement of Newman’s letter, and the spokesman or the reporter got it wrong:

This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

That sounds like a vacillation, not an endorsement. On one hand, Laughlin repudiates Newman, but on the other hand, notes that church members have to follow church teachings on abortion. Laughlin says that anyone who thinks they have a clear conscience can take communion, and yet the “teachings of the Church” clearly state that anyone who formally cooperates in abortion is automatically excommunicated, whether they feel guilty about it or not.

This, unfortunately, has been the kind of double-talk that leads people to believe that abortion is compatible with the Catholic faith, when the church itself teaches that it fundamentally is not.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

within the sacrafice of the mass we stand and say “We believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord giver of LIFE” next time Biden and Pelosi and thier followers go to MASS they should just sit with a hand over thier mouths

“Father Newman is off-base,” said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. “He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. … Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Senators Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words.”

This is yet another turn your brain into a pretzel from the left. How in the world can a priest be off base for stating what the churches beliefs are? He is a priest! Last I heard it was their jobs to teach what the church stands for!

While Newman has been the most outspoken of South Carolina priests in the wake of the election, the administrator of the diocese of Charleston, Msgr. Martin T. Laughlin, supports him fully, said diocese spokesman Steve Gajdosik.
“I think it’s fair to say that Father Newman’s letter echoes the sentiments of Father Laughlin,” he said.

Let’s see what Laughlin really thinks:

Statement of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston:

This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, ‘Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.’ The Catechism goes on to state: ‘In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.’

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

Ed, that’s standing firm???? It’s usually best to make sure you have all the facts before you post… or at least be honest about them.

How does this square with the fact that many Hispanics voted for Obama?

Phoenician on November 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM

How does it square with the fact that people like Cardinal Mahony protected known pederasts and pedophiles by moving them to other parishes? How does it square with the millions of dollars paid to victims of the Vatican’s slow hand on behalf of the sexually abused? Catholic leadership has a great history of moral challenges.

The Catholic church is no different than any other group funded by its members. They want their money.

Nice that someone is speaking out and standing up for the unborn. Now maybe we can eek out some justice for some of the living victims of abuse.

This is yet another turn your brain into a pretzel from the left. How in the world can a priest be off base for stating what the churches beliefs are? He is a priest! Last I heard it was their jobs to teach what the church stands for!

4shoes on November 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM

There are maybe 50 million Catholics in the United States. Should the Vatican be filling out ballots for each of them? How do those voters respond when the church leaders weigh in on other candidates and issues? There may be times when the teaching from the Vatican conflicts with what a voter believes is in the country’s best interest.

“Father Newman is off-base,” said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. “He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. … Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Senators Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words.”

Or perhaps there will be a spiritual cost for Krueger’s words. Those who voted for Obama will be responsible for all things that evolve from his election. If Krueger does not like that he is in a very poor line of work.

“Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good,” Newman said in the letter.

Yeah, good luck with that, God. Considering that Obama’s professed “faith” is a stunt cooked up because he was told he needed to join a church to get ahead in black political circles; and considering that around half a million aborted black babies every year (or ‘mistakes’ as he calls them) don’t trouble Obama, I wouldn’t hold out much hope on this point.

Those Catholics who have chosen to support Obama and other liberals, have made their choice. By their actions, however they have “formed their conscience”, by whatever tortured route they arrived at their decision, they have repudiated the church’s teachings.

They have looked at the Catechism with the same view that Obama has looked at the Constitution, and to their minds, found it a “deeply flawed document”.

That is extremely poor judgment, and in and of itself should lead to denial of the sacraments until such time as an ecclesiastical court can determine whether excommunication is warranted.

The rules are the rules, and a parishioner cannot treat the catechism as a buffet, to pick and choose what they interests them. It is, indeed, an all or nothing choice.

Now we need some of this tough talk not only on abortion but on marriage. There may even be a equivalent of Rove Vs. Wade for marriage and prop 8. The opposition to abortion is also about rights, which the left yell about prop 8 is about, it is the rights of the unborn.

Priests do no favors to their parishioners when they avoid teaching the difference, and the spiritual cost of willful silence on the subject of abortion far outstrips the cost of speaking the truth.

AMEN!!!

I truly cannot understand these people who trade, for the “mess of pottage” of a little human approval now, the sure knowledge that they’re going to be able to stand in front of God and say, “I followed Your teachings as best I knew how, even at earthly cost to myself” when the pittance of those earthly costs won’t even be remembered against the inestimable joys of having pleased God, and hearing

“Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Those words were part of today’s Gospel, by the way. We are all weak sinners but those who keep hearing that phrase at the end of their lives as their NUMBER ONE GOAL will not go far wrong.

It’s an odd moment indeed when someone accuses a parish priest of being off-base for quoting the catechism.

He didn’t just quote catechism. He made several other judgments — for example that a candidate’s position on abortion overwhelms most other factors, and specifically that McCain was otherwise a good candidate.

Rev. Newman said: “Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.” This implicitly acknowledges that the other issues may outweigh the candidate’s views on abortion; the pro-life candidate may not be “plausible.” So he was making a specific determination that McCain was an acceptable candidate.

Obviously everyone here agrees with this last point, and in fact strongly supported McCain. But I think the point is that people want to be allowed to disagree with that statement. They may find McCain unacceptable for some reasons unrelated to abortion, and though they are as strongly pro-life as the church is, they still choose to vote for Obama and feel that they shouldn’t be excluded from the church on this basis.

It offends their sensibilities that religion and the church should be somewhat separated from politics. It seems perfectly fine for the church to make judgments about specific issues (e.g., abortion is wrong, and is an important issue compared to the economy, foreign policy, etc.). And it’s probably fine for the church to issue a specific endorsement (not from the government’s tax-exempt point of view, but in church-goers’ minds). But making a statement that disagreeing with the church not on these beliefs about abortion, but on the rest of the issues, constitutes a sin in the eyes of the church is what offends people.

If you are not at Peace with, if you don’t feel good about yourself and your actions in life, then it is only normal to attack those that are. This explains the less than truthful and joyous criticisms of Sarah Palin and anyone else that walks the talk. The priest was correct in leaving the door open for repentence, in this case, in the church, but if people have burned that bridge, then another door will open for them if they really want it. Sometimes we have to live like Prodigals before we discover the errors of our ways. The Kingdom of Heaven may be waiting for us but we are the ones that have to take the first step and open the door. This may apply to everyone, no matter what their position is in this matter: As long as we are justifying our positions and hating those that don’t agree with us, then there is no way that we can unlock that door. “Heaven cannot be taken by storm.”

How do those voters respond when the church leaders weigh in on other candidates and issues? There may be times when the teaching from the Vatican conflicts with what a voter believes is in the country’s best interest.

The church is there to teach what it believes to be the will of God and Christ. A priest probably shouldn’t have to speak out against a politician who believes in abortion, he should only have to speak out against abortion. It’s up to these people who belong to a church, do they vote for their religion or a person who they think might help this country? (think being the operative word here.) I personally am not religious, I wasn’t raised going to a church, don’t know if I believe in God some days, but if I were a religious person who belonged to a church and I believed in what that church taught, I don’t think I’d have a hard time choosing according to what I’d learned from my church. I know it sounds simplistic, but that’s how I see it.

How does it square with the millions of dollars paid to victims of the Vatican’s slow hand on behalf of the sexually abused? Catholic leadership has a great history of moral challenges……
Nice that someone is speaking out and standing up for the unborn. Now maybe we can eek out some justice for some of the living victims of abuse.

The Race Card on November 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM

You seem to contradict yourself in your post.

I imagine the church is into over a billion dollars and likely hundreds of arrests of those who did the crimes.

There are enough people stressed out right now, then to be ejected by the Church because they decided to vote their own way.

The imbecilic “Catholics” who voted for Barack Obama are ejecting themselves through their moral confusion. This priest is trying to help them reconcile themselves back to the Church. They should be grateful; they’re certainly lucky.

Free Will is a bummer sometimes.

It sure is, especially for those who haven’t fully considered the consequences of their actions.

Should the Vatican be filling out ballots for each of them? How do those voters respond when the church leaders weigh in on other candidates and issues? There may be times when the teaching from the Vatican conflicts with what a voter believes is in the country’s best interest.

dedalus on November 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM

The Church never said they would fill out the ballots.
Catholics can do what they please but they are responsible for their actions and will suffer the repurcussions.

“Father Newman is off-base,” said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. “He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. … Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Senators Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words.”

Great, another “Catholic” who thinks the job of the Church is to hold his hand and say “there, there” while he supports intrinsic acts of evil. These people don’t want a Church, they want an incompetent therapist.

This man should be shaking in his boots over the “spiritual cost” and doing whatever he can to atone for them, not criticizing the man who points it out to him. These people aren’t Catholics, they’re spiritual poseurs who just want to wrap up their cognitive dissonances in something (anything) “spiritual.”

Well, then, I got it right, too, Tom. I relied on the spokesperson. What’s the difference?

The difference is that the paper published two stories later on Friday about Laughlin’s statement. They initially reported on what the spokesman said, then reported on Laughlin’s statement once it was released. So yes, they initially relied upon the spokesman, but once other news came out that contradicted it, they reported that too.

this happened two days ago. Laughlin’s statement has been reported on in multiple places.

The Church never said they would fill out the ballots.
Catholics can do what they please but they are responsible for their actions and will suffer the repurcussions.

Nice try. Obama played you and you know it.

Jamson64 on November 16, 2008 at 12:52 PM

You’d need to explain my vote for McCain then. If a priest threatens to withhold the eucharist or excommunicate a Catholic over a vote in an election, they are essentially telling Catholics how to vote.

We hear from pro-Democrat Catholics that they feel it is more pro-life to vote Democrat due to the support for social programs as well as Obama’s anti-war stance.
There are three problems right of the bat with this thought process:

By any reasonable standard, President Bush is the biggest antipoverty, health, and education spender in American history. Under President Bush, federal antipoverty spending has topped 3 percent of GDP for the first time ever. Federal education spending has leapt 9.7 percent annually–compared to 2 percent annually under President Clinton. Health research and regulation has grown by 9.5 percent annually.

Jews votes democratic… Catholics are starting to do the same. And you think a Priest is going to change their mind?
upinak on November 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM

I don’t know whether this priest will change any minds, but I do know that Catholics who choose a pro-abortion candidate (not to mention one so radically so as Barack Obama) are morally confused, at best, and need to change their minds.

No, Ed, that sounds like a statement of self-preservation against the intolerant Leftists who are already on the march against the Catholic and Mormon churches. He really had to “repudiate” the priest’s comments as they came too close to jeopardizing the church’s standing in the U.S. by being too blatantly political.

The priest’s mistake was in how he delivered his message, not the content.

If a priest threatens to withhold the eucharist or excommunicate a Catholic over a vote in an election, they are essentially telling Catholics how to vote.

dedalus on November 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM

No- actually it is the person’s own choice to excommunicate themselves and the Church is making that clear. Your inability to grasp that fact indicates an immature intelligence. This is not a cut but realitly.

If you don’t like the Church rules…leave.

By the way excommunication does not keep one from being able to attend the Mass.

There are maybe 50 million Catholics in the United States. Should the Vatican be filling out ballots for each of them? How do those voters respond when the church leaders weigh in on other candidates and issues? There may be times when the teaching from the Vatican conflicts with what a voter believes is in the country’s best interest.

Of course there are. I struggle against the Church’s position on capital punishment and war, for example, because I believe, on balance, that the two serve greater goods, for the most part. However, the matter of abortion is unique in that, according to the Church, there simply is no wiggle room. There are no mitigating circumstances that allow for it, and no greater good for which it can be accepted.

Most of the “Catholics” who chose Obama did so because they believed one or both of the following things:

1. Obama’s welfare policies are consistent with Jesus’s admonition to care for the poor, and that trumped any concerns about abortion; and/or

2. Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq is a better moral position to take than George W. Bush’s, and that trumped any concerns about abortion.

Your statements about the Vatican filling out ballots misses the forest for the trees. The Vatican shouldn’t have to fill out ballots for anyone. What it needs to do is to be clear as crystal about its moral positions and the obligation of a devout Catholic to adhere to those positions.

and yet the “teachings of the Church” clearly state that anyone who formally cooperates in abortion is automatically excommunicated, whether they feel guilty about it or not.

As you stated earlier:

So far, the church has not officially applied 2272 explicitly to the act of voting for a pro-choice candidate.

In other words, whether voting for a pro-choice candidate constitutes “formal cooperation” with abortion is a matter of interpretation, and the church has not officially endorsed the interpretation that is does.

So why is this double-talk? You can be fully anti-abortion as the church teaches, and still “have a clear conscience” that you voted for a candidate on the basis of other issues overwhelming the abortion issue. Do you really think that in order for the church to be consistent it needs to ordain that only candidates that are fully in line with church doctrine on this one issue are acceptable?

Not only vacillation but, from first to last, obfuscation. (I’ll skip past Laughlin’s partly moronic, fully redundant, “partisan political arena”)

– Newman didn’t divert focus from the teachings on abortion, he concentrated it,

– Laughlin appears to think Newman should not be included in the “aided by the witness or advice of others” in conscience forming; priests no, partisan politicians who deceive voters on what Church teaching is, yes,

– “Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.” The big “if” does not negate the fact that Newman is not talking about the voting parishioner voting for the venially lying politician, but the gravely mortal sinning politician. The travesty the bishop is committing here telling parishioners that the Church has no standards for measuring “well” and there are no lines that can’t be crossed in freely forming one’s conscience. That’s not teaching or quiding or sheparding, it’s keeping the pews full and the tithing high.

– “We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child.” Drivel. One does not support what one opposes. The only meaning I can take away from this is that Laughlin is in favor of bartering for a favorable position on abortion by selling his support on other issues. Nice guy that bishop is.

If a priest threatens to withhold the eucharist or excommunicate a Catholic over a vote in an election, they are essentially telling Catholics how to vote.

It’s not a threat; it’s a priests responsibility to protect his flock by making them aware of the grave sin they commit by taking the Eucharist when they are not in a state of grace. The Church believes that doing so (taking the communion whilst being encumbered with unconfessed and unrepented sin) is harmful to the soul.

“Father Newman is off-base,” said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. “He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. … Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Senators Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words.”

Sorry, I had to print this again it is so awesome

I am not a Catholic. I consider Catholics under Pope Benedict to be leaders in the fight against the corruptions of the faithless world and therefore my dearest friends and allies. Benedict is a true believer and therefore I know he would do battle for me in the Last Days should they be upon us, and my love is gratitude for his love

A mere priest, Catholic or otherwise can impose no great cost on a faithful servant of God, unless the priest owns the mortgage to the parishoner’s home. A priest going against Christ only increases the glory under God of those he persecutes, if it is persecution.

Flipping off Communion for unjust reasons is not of consequence to those who stand with Christ. To be denied communion by a force of evil in fact is a higher communion with Christ, so these parishoners who voted for abortion, infanticide and euthanesia Senators Obama and Biden will be blessed by the Holy Spirit, as were the many martyrs held dear by the Church through the ages for suffering in the name of Jesus

Most of the “Catholics” who chose Obama did so because they believed one or both of the following things:

1. Obama’s welfare policies are consistent with Jesus’s admonition to care for the poor, and that trumped any concerns about abortion; and/or

2. Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq is a better moral position to take than George W. Bush’s, and that trumped any concerns about abortion.

Now obviously no one here agrees with these statements in the first place. But it still seems reasonable to allow people to make judgments like this.

However, I understand that the church may consider abortion to be the most important issue out there, and that its stance is absolute in the sense that no other position other than its own is acceptable. So the answer may be that even if the two points above are true, it’s still unacceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

But what if the distance between the two candidates isn’t so far on abortion issues? McCain certainly has never been a darling of the pro-life movement.

And what if you believe that there’s only a small chance that either will have an enormous effect on the actual issue of abortion? Now, in this election, I would argue that the candidates will probably have a big effect; McCain might have had the chance to replace a liberal Supreme Court judge with a conservative one, tipping the balance and possibly leading to an overturn of Roe v Wade. But in other elections this may not be the case. It may be that there’s only a tiny chance that any practical significant different will arise between the candidates. In this case, is it still not okay to vote for the pro-choice candidate because on balance you think the world/country/poor/etc. will be better off?

But this blather I keep hearing about how Obama can’t stop abortion anyway and, besides, McCain’s for war, is muddy-headed.

Kensington on November 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM

It may be muddy-headed, but on a higher level, shouldn’t members of the church be allowed to think for themselves (and even possibly make muddy-headed decisions) as long as they are clearly in agreement with the church’s positions on abortion?

Also, what do you think about other elections? It’s conceivable that with a couple more Supreme Court replacements in the next term, the candidates in 2012 will not have any reasonable chance at being able to nominate more justices. If that ends up being the case, is it then allowable to vote for a pro-choice candidate who will probably make very little difference on the abortion issue?

If a priest threatens to withhold the eucharist or excommunicate a Catholic over a vote in an election, they are essentially telling Catholics how to vote.

dedalus on November 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM

No, the priest is just telling the catholic what the consequences will be within the confines of the faith.
The church clearly teaches that that co-operation with abortion separates a catholic from the faith (therefore they cannot receive communion without damning themselves, unless they truly repent and go to confession)
Obama promised that his first act would be to sign FOCA, which will erase all the progress made by the pro-life movement over the last decades, make abortion ubiquitous throughout the country and eliminate all the rights of the states with respect to abortion, from banning of partial birth abortion to parental notification rights. That is co-operation with abortion.

The reality is ROE being overturned is only part of the puzzle but a big one at that.

You must have missed my previous post. I suspect you and Catholics who supported Obama(not you of course) do not know that :

Per Heritage.Org

By any reasonable standard, President Bush is the biggest antipoverty, health, and education spender in American history. Under President Bush, federal antipoverty spending has topped 3 percent of GDP for the first time ever. Federal education spending has leapt 9.7 percent annually–compared to 2 percent annually under President Clinton. Health research and regulation has grown by 9.5 percent annually.

Also, Obama promises to continue the war in Afghanistan and Iraq(at least til 2010).

Abortion has not been a viable subject in the Catholic Church since the beginning. As is birth control and why it is outlawed.

Though many Catholics use birth control for obvious reasons… it is still a no-no via the Head of the Church.

And since you are not Catholic and I am not going to put down whatever faith you are… don’t assume. DO NOT DO IT. Catholics have such a bad rap right now for so many things but yet you are trying to give up a bad rap for abortion and how the Church (and many real catholics) feel and KNOW is wrong. Just Stop…

Makes me want to move to SC! I think it’s great that a priest came forth and said it like it is and the diocese backed it up. I believe there are so many phonies out there. No way can a true Christian/ Catholic vote for a pro choice candidate. The 2 don’t jive.
Like when Pelosi was kissing the Pope’s ring, it’s unreal.
I actually do pray for liberals, they are un Godly, I go along with Coulter on that.
The problem with the south is that being from the north, there seems to be bias, which doesn’t jive either–but that’s off topic.
Anyway, I say good for that Priest, they should all be that devout and so should the parishoners.

If that ends up being the case, is it then allowable to vote for a pro-choice candidate who will probably make very little difference on the abortion issue?

tneloms on November 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM

It depends, if that candidate would have less of a negative impact on the issue of life than his contender then it would be allowable for a catholic to vote for him. Catholics are compelled to vote for the lesser of the two evils and the issue of abortion takes precedence over all other issues because it involves the taking of a life of the most vulnerable and innocent among us.

But my question — and it’s really more of a question than me asserting a position — has to do with the difference between values and other types of thinking.

Clearly the church should be explicit and steadfast in its positions on values (i.e., abortion is absolutely wrong). Should it also take strong positions on practical questions like which candidate will have what effect? You may be right that Obama Catholics are misinformed, but does the church assert that they don’t have the right to think for themselves (assuming they accept the fundamental values), which will possibly leave them misinformed, or correctly informed but with the wrong conclusion?

I would say that it’s still better to support the pro-life candidate even if it’s likely that neither candidate will be able to affect the matter of abortion one way or another.

For one thing, you never can tell how someone might be able to influence an issue even if there are no obvious routes (such as supreme court appointments). A pro-life president may simply be able to influence hearts and minds through his example and the bully pulpit, or his presence in the White House could end up emboldening more people in the local communities to stand up in support of life.

But even more simply, it’s a shorthand into the character of the candidate. If a candidate isn’t even clear-headed enough to recognize or acknowledge the intrinsic evil of abortion, then I can’t help but wonder where else that muddy-headedness is going to end up having a negative influence in his policies or on the world in general.

I don’t think that “the church assert that they don’t have the right to think for themselves (assuming they accept the fundamental values)”. The Church says you can choose. Go ahead. In the end a choice has been made and let the fallout begin.

And since you are not Catholic and I am not going to put down whatever faith you are… don’t assume. DO NOT DO IT. Catholics have such a bad rap right now for so many things but yet you are trying to give up a bad rap for abortion and how the Church (and many real catholics) feel and KNOW is wrong. Just Stop…

Think before you type on this subject. You will not win.

upinak on November 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM

What am I assuming?

I’m not trying to give the Church a bad rap. I’m merely explaining why people were offended by what Rev. Newman said, and am questioning whether the Church is overstepping by making statements not just about values but about other political determinations.

within the sacrafice of the mass we stand and say “We believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord giver of LIFE” next time Biden and Pelosi and thier followers go to MASS they should just sit with a hand over thier mouths

rico101 on November 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM

maybe we will see protestors outside their churches a la the Neg on Prop 8 people?? : )

The Church isn’t overstepping their BOUNDS! They are instating was was taught from the beginning…. period.

Free Will is one thing… but when yoiu go against the teachings of the Church, you are going against the teachings of God. Abortion is wrong… Killing an innocent no matter what the cause and why is wrong.

People whom do not understand that (Catholic or otherwise) are just fooling themselves.

I don’t know of any “Church” whom would open up and say it was OK that you had an abortion (whether it be a female or a male making the decision, because males do help at times in that process) because you are selfish and do not want a child in this world because YOU screwed up!

Don’t worry about the priest’s warnings and judgments–he is only trying to save his parishioner’s souls. Worry about God’s judgment instead–God does not compromise with evil! Calling (and supporting) it as “choice” instead of “abortion” will not help them.

Seriously, I’m thrilled to hear that. It makes you, literally, the first Episcopalian I’ve ever encountered who wasn’t basically a Leftist in a pew (or Howard Dean on a bike).
If there are more like you, then I am heartened and delightfully surprised.
Kensington on November 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM

There are many more that I “church” with. I have seen the light and gone right. That’s allowed in our church, too. Personally, as a free market capitalist, I want to put the abortion clinics out of business by sending them no business at all. Roe v. Wade…moot. Good care…in.

“… but does the church assert that they don’t have the right to think for themselves …”

Absolutely not. We are all free men. It’s just that if you profess your Church belief (regardless of how you may think at times), but you then act on that different belief via the way you vote (essentially professing that different belief), you don’t belong as a member of the Church and the Church has every right to think you don’t and act on it.

[Ignore above; clicked the wrong button. We should be able to edit/delete our posts.]

Most of the “Catholics” who chose Obama did so because they believed one or both of the following things:

1. Obama’s welfare policies are consistent with Jesus’s admonition to care for the poor, and that trumped any concerns about abortion; and/or

2. Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq is a better moral position to take than George W. Bush’s, and that trumped any concerns about abortion. . .

Kensington on November 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM

I repeat: Most of Obambi’s voters had no clue where he stood on any issue, except maybe that he was going to “give 95% of us a tax cut.” I cannot think of any MSM reports on Obambi’s views on abortion, nor did it come up in the debates.

This election demonstrated that the Founding Fathers’ aversion to direct democracy was well-grounded. The ‘blacks’ voted for Obambi’s skin color. The rest voted for ‘change’. What a travesty!

Obama will have us in Iraq til at least 2010 , in Afghanistan to who knows when, and in the hunt for Osama.

Jamson64 on November 16, 2008 at 2:03 PM

I think O will end up having us in Iraq for about the same length of time as a Rep administration would have. Despite all his leftist statements during the campaign, once he is actually in charge and will be held accountable for the consequences I suspect his foreign policy may not be much different than W’s was.

I repeat: Most of Obambi’s voters had no clue where he stood on any issue, except maybe that he was going to “give 95% of us a tax cut.” I cannot think of any MSM reports on Obambi’s views on abortion, nor did it come up in the debates

Mr Lynn good point. I do not understand as well why more was not made of infanticide. Obama lied about this issue. He is so pro-abortion that he would not stand up for babies who dared escape their mothers’ womb. Sickening.

I repeat: Most of Obambi’s voters had no clue where he stood on any issue, except maybe that he was going to “give 95% of us a tax cut.” I cannot think of any MSM reports on Obambi’s views on abortion, nor did it come up in the debates.
This election demonstrated that the Founding Fathers’ aversion to direct democracy was well-grounded. The ‘blacks’ voted for Obambi’s skin color. The rest voted for ‘change’. What a travesty!
MrLynn on November 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM

That was so well put, I am putting that on my office door in the morning. Thank you.

I don’t understand what you’re arguing against. Most of what you said doesn’t contradict anything I said at all.

I completely accept that the Church is absolute in its belief that abortion is wrong. There is no wiggle room, and the Church will never say that it’s okay to have an abortion.

My question is explicitly not about that. It’s about the Church making other political judgments. Let’s say someone fully accepts the Church’s position on abortion. But they believe that neither candidate will have much of an effect on the issue. Furthermore, they strongly support the pro-choice candidate on other grounds. This is a determination that this person is making on non-value grounds. Does the Church frown upon this type of thinking?